Is it time for philosophy to do away with metaphysics?

I love philosophy but one of the main issues that I hear about it is that its impractical and serves no suitable purpose to the world. Although I believe this claim to be somewhat false I understand the point that is being made from those who criticize it.

Philosophy is capable of being pragmatic but the reason why it appears as though its not is because it deals too much with the abstract and concerns itself with metaphysics. If you want a real brain teaser metaphysical talk is the way to go but metaphysics really serves no purpose to the world. For a family who constantly have to work to feed their children and provide an education, contemplating the nature of reality or postulating weather or not consciousness exists outside the brain is probably not going to help the situation. One of my professors say that if we sit in meditation, we’ll understand the true harmonious nature and interconnectedness of the universe. We will understand how to act in each moment (similar to what Taoist believe). He may be right but we often forget that its a privilege to be able to do so. Nor are these concerns on everyone’s mind.

The philosophy department at my school is great but it is too indulged in metaphysics. From an epistomological standpoint this is problematic because most of the claims that are made is either in conflict with the way the natural world really is (scientific discoveries) and they are essentially not able to be proved which means we should not waste our time with such claims. When it comes to epistemology, I think this is where philosophy could utilize the methodology of science.

I"m a philosopher at heart but it concerns me that philosophy would lose it value if it cannot indulge in more empiricism and naturalism when making claims about the way the world is.

are we so concerned with value to the point that we'll negate truth? is science capable of establishing values?

May 11 2013:
Metaphysics - as I see it - is ground of every human acting and thinking. It appoints and determines understanding of basic concepts (terms) of human mind. For example such terms as: being, reality, action, energy, existence, essence, will, mind, consciousness, life, aim (goal), soul, nature, relation, truth, development, cause, result, meaning, subject, object, knowledge - is it possible to think or to communicate without using them? And the metaphysics is the science which explains all that terms and tries to connect them in a system. That’s why it is necessary in every kind of science.

May 11 2013:
Yes, trying to understand, as you stated "being, reality, action, energy, existence, essence, will, mind, consciousness, life, aim (goal), soul, nature, relation, truth, development, cause, result, meaning, subject, object, knowledge" is great. I have no issue with any of that. I'm not saying science can answer everything but from my experience its gotten to the point that where there's a scientific answer or where science can explore, I'm told that metaphysics proceeds science so the answer I should derive from the questions are metaphysical ones.

I just disagree with that. I find it perturbing that my professors can't be intellectually honest about things that we're still exploring. I'd rather them admit that they don't know as opposed to the conclusions that they derive. Such an approach literally led me to create this thread (I need to know what others thought) and one of my classmates to change his major. That is why I think science is vital to philosophy, much more so than metaphysics but I could be wrong, especially considering the questions that metaphysics ask. You probably wouldn't have science with out it.

May 13 2013:
Mr Hawkins, I like you thought. I like your questions, the most. I listened to videos by Michio Kaku, Leonard Susskind, and part of a talk by Edward Witten. The last talk by Professor Ed Witten is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2XerpjV_AA .

I quote next from Wikipedia/metaphysics:
"The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the totality of all phenomena within the universe."

It would seem, today, that perhaps the only VALID (or at least the Leading) work being done in the field of Metaphysics today is NOT by Metaphysicians & professors of Philosophy -- but by Theoretical Physicists, Cosmologists, & Astronomers. That seems to be where the action is.

Mr Hawkins, YOU are the expert. But it seems to me that when the leading thinkers of the human species stopped being shamans, they became Priests. When they stopped being Priests, they became Philosophers or Theologians. When the leading Philosophers started to measure & count things, they became Mathematicians. When the leading Philosophers started using mathematics to measure the world & test it, they became Scientists like Physicists, Astronomers, Chemists, and yes, even Biologists. But in the beginning, they were all trained Philosophers.

It would seem to me that all those Physicists are doing fine with their Mathematics. And clearly, the Mathematics, the experiments and the proofs validate the Physics. But the way the Physicists are approaching Metaphysics is pathetic. The language they use is bad. They try to EXPLAIN what the mathematics is telling them and they can't. They need a Metaphysician to give them words.

that is very compelling. I like that...thanks for your response. I like your analogy and I agree about science switching the lights on.

what I'm concerned about is people using metaphysics not only to guess whats there in the dark room but never turning the lights on in the first place and telling others they know whats in the room, while the room is still dark.

the process you mentioned I'm honest enough to admit that I agree with it. But once the lights are on, I can't see how you can still accept a metaphysical conclusion, especially if we know what's already in the room.

I don't think the metaphysical can ever be a conclusive thing, because it seems to me to be placed at the initial stages in the hierarchy of thought that leads, via intuition, through to what we like to call certainty. However, there may be exceptions:

The way I see it is that 'certainty' is unstable. To stick with the lit room analogy, it's almost as though the lit room is forever expanding and/or changing shape, and the bulb we switched on initially is no longer bright enough to light the whole of it any more. We then have to feel our way around again as philosophers - or even as metaphysicians if it is beyond experience - to try and find more light switches.

It's like a constant conveyor belt of intuition/possibility/probability/certainty - forever changing, and with the constant need for re-referral back to metaphysical/philosophical origins in order to ascertain the elusive holy grail of certainty.

May 12 2013:
Orlando,
I agree about people not being honest enough to say they don't know. Knowledge is classically defined as justified true belief...and the way science is going, it seems what is uncovered in our universe is in flux constantly. In metaphysics, there are probably fewer things being "discovered" these days. The thing that sticks in my craw is that science, while it works well to refine the explanation of how something is done, it can never answer whether something ought to be done. Science never illuminates the "ought", "why", and "transcendence" questions, just the material questions. And the most pressing need of our society is for the former questions to be illuminated. Metaphysics is an important part of this enlightenment.

I do agree that science is not capable of answering every question. I somewhat disagree that science cannot answer the "ought" or "why" questions (or even the transcendental ones).

The reason why I think this is because I belive that there is no clear boarder between "good" philosophy and science. For me good philospohy is reasonable and values evidence in spite of how grotesque the truth may be. Nietzsche did show a bit of concern about our pursuit for truth. He wondered if it would be psychologically daming if we concered ourselves with truth for the sake of value. Personally I believe that most scienfitic facts or theories have philosophical explanations.

Your right that the world is constantly in flux. You see this in science when a theory is taken off the table or modified because we know more or when something new is discovered.

I hope you don't take my response as science is able to answer our most important existential questions. I do not believe that is the purpose of science. The main issue I have is when there are scientific questions that can only be answered by science (or the best answer is scientific) and yet philosophers and theologains claim that the answer is metaphysical. Here is an example:

Assume you wanted to expalin how the Mt. Baldy mountisns in california shifted from north and south to east and west. There are many naturalistic explianations to this question. You can talk about the tatonic plates, you can talk about the san andreas falt, etc. Many natural scientists can explain why. Now one of my professors who likes to invoke quantum mechanics would assert that there could be no shift because ultimatly the mountains are non-physical and therefore there could be no naturalistic explaination. It is this sort of philosophy that I have an issue with. one's that are not honest in face of the evidence.

May 14 2013:
I am privileged to quote YOU here, Mr. Hawkins: (and please forgive my 'schoolmaster' voice -- this is a feeble attempt at both humor and irony . . . :)

" . . . what I'm concerned about is people using metaphysics not only to guess whats there in the dark room but never turning the lights on in the first place and telling others they know whats in the room, while the room is still dark . . . . But once the lights are on, I can't see how you can still accept a metaphysical conclusion, especially if we know what's already in the room." I agree completely. Specifically, Sam Harris talks about that in his TEDtalk. I had to figure out how Dr. Harris could list himself as both a neuroscientist and a philosopher. Answer: he got educated in both.

I very much fear that while YOU are asking all the right questions, you are NOT getting the right answers by any means. If your goal is to study Philosophy, I'd seriously consider going to a different school or University. Sam Harris is easy to respect because he admits up front that people can disagree. What's more, he accepts the idea that even religious people can disagree on critical, dogmatic RELIGIOUS issues and not get heartburn over it. But clearly, the only thing he will NOT tolerate is shabby or lazy or superstitious THINKING. Things MUST be logical, and reasonable. And we have to be committed to learn. I can tell that you are a serious student. Your answers are thoughtful and insightful. You questions, equally so. No respected PHILOSOPHER who earned a PhD in their discipline would leave you "dangling" on this issue as they have. I agree with YOU and not with the people you are complaining about. YOU have the point worth defending here. More below.

Thanks for your comments. Yes I am a serious philosophy students. I'm constantly trying to learn more and more.

One of the main issues that I have is when peopel ask me what my major is. When I tell them that I'm a philosophy major the most common response I recieve is, "philosophy huh? what can you possibliy do with a philosophy degree?".

The more I explore the reasons as to why people believe that philosophy has no value, the more I realize that they don't believe it serves a practical purpose (at least in the western world. The focus is always about business, politics or anything else to do with money).

I too do not tolerate superstiious thinking. I understand the reason's as to why people do but I really don't believe its going to help people. Sam Harris is great because he's an honest person and is willing to admit both the good and the bad. What he belives to be true and what he believes to be false.

I noticed its my class that usually has to deal with metaphysical issues that pertubs people the most because of the claims that my professors say about reality. Its not that I think metaphysics is false, it more that I belive its unverfiable and those who are capable of giving it some credence do so by the virtue of having the opportunity to do so, which most people do not have for x,y and Z reasons. I just want to make philosophy asscessble to everyone so they can see how much of a suitable purpose it has

May 10 2013:
Orlando, I agree with Fritzie, but would add a definition of philosophy that could aid you for the remainder of your life: Philosophy is a process of man to reconcile material and non-material realities. Humans cannot know all things and those realities that cannot be observed with eyes, hearing, touch, smell or by any uses of machines and observing equipment, must therefore be handled through thinking and imagination. A purposeful question for any problem could be 'what is real'?

Philosophy helps mankind address challenges, some large, as Fritzie infers. What could humankind achieve without the ability to think? Not much, I suspect.

You have the ability to think and I suspect you consider the topics selected by your professor is a waste of time. Could be very true for you at this time in your life. Pick a different topic in your private thinking or in concert with others and attempt to find explanation for what troubles you---the questions you have in life. Meditate on those problems and in time note the questions and ideas that come to mind related to your selected challenges or topics you wish to address.

Philosophy has its purposes. You would be wise to attempt to reconcile what you can observe and learn by education and compare it to your ideals you would like to prevail in your life---be it small or large. After all is said, it is the good you can give to the world that matters most. Think of ways you could do the most good, no matter how large or small your personal world!

Would there be any value for you and friends to encourage others to do the same?

May 10 2013:
Mark raises an important issue that goes beyond the study of philosophy per se. "Pick a different topic for your private thinking or in concert with others..."

When a teacher focuses on a topic, it is valuable for you to consider it, as you may not at first glance understand its importance. Education is meant to open your eyes to things you have not realized.

On the other hand learning and education are about adding to what you are thinking about and find of value- not replacing it. You can fruitfully fold what you learn to consider in your education into what you already think about- your existing great interests and concerns.

but I'm not as ignorant as you think I am. I more than understand the reason's why metaphysics is valuable to many people. Reading Nietzsche and existential philosophy does give some insight on human the human condition.

I have learned a great deal from my professors. They are more concerned about value as opposed to anything else and I do not think that is a bad thing. The only issue is that they find value in some other world. I find value in this world. I do not have to agree with them but I do like what they have to say. It has much benevolence.

For me its no coincidence that the most prominent contemporary philosophers also have a contribution to the scientific community. I'm not saying science is the only way to find value but I think philosophy can use a bit of science and science could use a bit of philosophy.

I don't need to agree with their metaphysics in order to have a valuable life. There are other ways of finding value. Its just a matter of figuring it out

For one I never mentioned that philosophy should go away nor do I think it ever will. I've stated metaphysics, which is one branch of philosophy. I just don't see how it can be useful in the modern world anymore, especially with advances in science.

Does philosophy have a valuable history? Of course! Does it serve a purpose? Absolutely! Is it as dry as many people think it is? I don't think so..

I do like what you mentioned in regards to philosophy dealing with the material and non material world...if your taking about your own personal life experiences and values and what is useful I agree with you if you consider this non-material. I think that is why existential philosophy is very important and existential philosophy does not always deal with metaphysics.

As I've learned from Nietzsche, Sartre and other existentialist you can have much value to your life. The physical world is not the only thing that matters but I don't think metaphysics will provide much comfort. All I know is that I'm here, I'm living and I'm finding my own value in the world. Being concerned about an metaphysical after world that may or may not exists is not going to do me or most people (at least I think so) any justice.

You mentioned that I should find a topic that troubles me, well this is one but I would hope that no one took it as me saying philosophy should go away unless you define philosophy as metaphysics, which it is not.

I think, philosophy drives science and research, not the other way around. E.g. Apple and Google have different philosophies. Apple values style and user experience while Google makes emphasis on "cloud computing" - Google wants all data to flow through their servers. These philosophies give different directions to research and development.

I think, it's ignorant to consider useless something that (I think) I don't use. E.g., some people believe that money spent on space exploration is better spent elsewhere while using GPS, navigation systems, cell phones, and satellite TV. None of these things would be possible without seemingly impractical "rocket science" or theory of general relativity.

I strongly disagree with Harris. He contradicts empiricism, in particular, David Hume who said "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Sean Carroll debated Harris on this talk in many places defending Hume's position.

From my point of view, I don't think philosophy and science are so different and as your rightly pointed out, science derives from philosophy, not the other way around. Most, scientific findings have some philosophical implications and it is in this way that I believe that science can establish values that would become philosophical.

Thanks for the link to the article. I read it this morning and it is good to see a scientist not denigrate philosophy. I don't agree with Lawrence Krauss idea of philosophy and I did not personally appreciate his introduction in the new book with his attacks on philosophy but I understood why he said what he said and I really think his issue had to do with metaphysics.

As with Harris, I think he gives philosophy much credit. All of his debates and lectures tackle philosophical issues he just back up his claim with hard science. I don't see how you could not get any more empirical. Being a neuroscientist he would have known that there is not a separate facility for reason and he would know that reason would have its bases in emotion but this still should not stop one from being reasonable.

I think for Harris philosophy is important but I do agree with Carroll that philosophy is more important than science is giving it credit for. Once again I think this is an issue with philosophy and not necessarily one of science (unless you have scientist like Krauss).

May 21 2013:
I agree with what you say. Science contributes to our understanding of the world and ourselves, and this understanding drives further research and social progress. It's philosophy right there - yin-yang type of relationship seen in many other questions - security vs. freedom, free will vs. determinism, emotion vs. reason, etc. I completely agree with Carroll when he says: " they are interesting questions to “raise,” but my own view is that the best answer is to promptly un-ask them. (Note that by now we’ve reached a purely philosophical issue, not a scientific one.)"

In my personal opinion, it's best when everyone "plows his own field" - scientists should not pretend to answer philosophical, religious, or moral questions; theologians should not mess with science or politics, etc. Most philosophers I know seem to know their place very well :-).

May 21 2013:
My interest with TED also started with Harris's talk. Controversies and self-refuting ideas fascinate me. TED is full of them. Bible is full of them too. This is why I'm fascinated with religion as well. It makes me think despite the popular opinion that religion instills blind faith and obedience. I think, derogatory attitudes towards philosophy and religion come not from understanding, but from the lack of it.

May 23 2013:
I read all this thread and I agree with what said here both by you and Orlando Hawkins. The very important & true point you wrote is worth to be stressed:

"In my personal opinion, it's best when everyone "plows his own field" - scientists should should not pretend to answer philosophical, religious, or moral questions; theologians should not mess with science or politics, etc."

About your last comment. Religions are considered to instill blind faith and obedience because the religions' institutionalized forms and their institutionalized followers had indeed imposed those blind faiths and obedience and they are still doing it. The originally pure and noble principles of the religions were trampled brutally by power and greed maniacs who established and maintained the institutionalized religions. So no wonder many people have bad attitude towards religions.

May 14 2013:
IMO, philosophy is the Mathematics of Life. Like in science, when science was at its infancy, it could make progress by its own -- meaning just by marching on the path of the human thought. But as the science got developed, it required more & more mathematics in order to make progress. It's true particularly with Physics. The Modern Physics which began developing at the end of the 19th century, could not do it without mathematics.

It's somewhat similar with life and philosophy. When we deal with the routine, daily life, we do not feel a need for philosophy. But as we go on living the routine life, and as we grow up, many thinking people feel that something is lacking in their routine life of pleasures & sufferings. They start looking for answers to their questions. A thirst is created in those minds to understand the principles which dominate their routine life and much further than that. This quest for understanding more than just our daily experience is called Philosophy. Philosophy helps us understanding the life like mathematics helps science understanding the physical world.

The great thing with philosophy is that if one truly understands it, one sees that philosophy always was, is and will be an inherent part of any self-conscious life. The only question is if any self-conscious being is capable of reaching this insight. The insight that there's actually no other path but only the philosophic/spiritual path in each and every struggle of life.

To illustrate our thirst for philosophy, imagine you haven't eaten anything for 2 days. Now someone puts before you a big plate with very delicious food and near it a big glass of water. What would you go for at the beginning ?? I guess for the plate full of food. You won't even look at the glass of water. But after eating enough and enjoying the delicious food, then you will start feeling a huge thirst for water and you will quench it with that water in the glass.

May 10 2013:
Philosophy, as you know, addresses large issues as well as small ones, highly useful and applicable ones and others that are largely disconnected from practical use. You have a choice, I think, to use the habits of mind you have developed to focus on the ones that help you lead your life better and understand the issues that are important to you.

Many fields occupy themselves with both large issues and small, important issues and less important issues. Focus on what resonates most with you.

that's exactly the point that I'm trying to make. The way I approach my philosophy is at odds with most of my professors. When I do look for practical and real world solutions to the issues that we talk about, they constantly invoke metaphysics, which is something that really cannot be proven.

My main point is that I want to be more than just your arm chair and academic philosopher but its pretty discouraging when your professor is telling you that your deluded by western, scientific thinking.

I'm not saying all of philosophy should be banned. What I do realize though is that its really a privilege to be able to talk about these things unless you really just have an interest. I just want to know how philosophy can apply to the real world and the lives of everyday individuals... I look many things that philosophy have to offer so I can't just limit myself to one thing that resonates with me..others can but I'm interested in pretty much any aspect of philosophy (with one exception of course)

May 14 2013:
Go read up on Neil deGrasse Tyson and look at some of his Youtube videos. If you are the kind of person for whom the open-ended, non-answer, leaving-plenty-of-room-for-debate, kind of thinking is somewhat unsettling, maybe YOU should be a scientist. I feel the Angst (i.e. Søren Kierkegaard) that you must be experiencing. But experimentation and discovery offer the own delights.

Woe be it unto me that I tempt you with the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Life. But Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Engineering can do that for you. Some people prefer science. Some people want to do all the math, make all the numbers crunch properly, solve all the homework problems, and go have a beer. Maybe you are listening to the RIGHT people, but you are in the WRONG field.

To me I think the issue is not whether philosophy should dump metaphysics or not but rather that philosophy should allow individuals to discern Truth for themselves. To take one side over another i.e metaphysics vs non-metaphysics is to limit ones own discernment for creating new ideas or ways of seeing things. The real problem is when we are expected to believe something particularly if we've never experienced it ourselves.

History is full of mysterious events, to label all of them 'un-real' just because we don't understand them would be a bit narrow minded in my mind. What if some mysterious experience happened to us? Would we be able to disregard it just because we didn't understand it? Or worse have others invalidate us just because they don't understand?

And look at quantum physics. Which daily spins off mysterious effects of nature. I think we have to get comfortable in a universe which may forever be completely unknowable to humans? Which doesn't have to go against that which we do know or believe. But can perhaps enrich it by keeping awe alive.

I do disagree though that to dwell on the nature of reality wont help with basic human needs. Sometimes we can't fulfil our basic human needs because of a lack of meaning in our lives which can lead to overwhelming depression or suicide. Sometimes, we feel a need for greater answers then basic human survival can offer, otherwise we wouldn't be human.

Thank you very much for such an interesting question. I do hope such discussions over metaphysics can continue in the broader public and outside religion as well. These are universal questions whether we are secular in our views or not. And like all our most cherished beliefs, with time even they change.

May 22 2013:
Right now we are a little more than a day away from putting this conversation to bed. So, with this in mind, I nominate this conversation for permanence. Either that or we add another month to its life. There is enough here that you could make a book (on LuLu.com) of just these comments. It's that good!

Mr. Orlando Hawkins, I thank you for your wisdom and patience in maintaining this thread. I've learned much from you as to how and how NOT to maintain a conversation. I tend to make an "author" of myself. You, however, Professor Hawkins . . .

Professor Hawkins, you have consistently set a very even tone with every response. You have been non-judgmental and honest. And you have expressed your feelings as well as your opinions and beliefs quite effectively. For this, I salute you. Clearly you have earned a title of respect beyond that of mere mortals such as myself. And for that, Professor Hawkins, you have both my respect and gratitude. You have taught me much. And you have challenged a great deal of what I only thought I knew previously. THIS is one of the greatest accomplishments, aspired to by anyone who wishes to enter academia and teach young & active minds the disciplines of Science, Liberal Arts, and Philosophy.

I do not believe that I am alone in this assessment. I would encourage anyone to express their closing opinion on just this: Professor Hawkins! I am NOT just being a smart-alec! You are GOOD at this!

I appreciated all your comments and kept in mind all the advice you gave me. I honestly did not expect that many people to respond to my post which is why I only set it for two weeks. No worries I will be back on here once i think of more questions.

I did learn a great deal from everyone on here as well. My perspective on metaphysics changed slightly. You rightly pointed out that I am close to finals at my school. I have finals last week and I just presented my senior thesis for philosophy today (I received an A in case your wondering) so that is why it did take me time to respond back. but once again thanks and hopefully we'll talk soon.

May 23 2013:
Thanks for your prompt response. I found out, thanks to you, that I know much less about philosophy than I thought I did. I do (I hope) believe that many of my statements to you are more correct than not as to the true state of things. If I was correct in my statements at least 58% of the time, then I get a "C-" for my efforts.

I do believe that there is a very real need for Professors of Philosophy. That is, high level, PhD educators trained in the academic history and discipline of Philosophy.

One of the things that you might consider is this: Quantum Physics has reached the point where the Experimental Method itself is starting to break down. And the Physicists are NOT talking about it because they don't know what to do about it. There is still a lot of valid, empiric, investigation to be done in the field. But at the sub-atomic level, the Physicists are finding out that it is impossible to get some answers. It isn't that they can't still do experiments. They can. It's just that the experiments they want to set up will NOT yield answers. And they know this because that is the fundamental nature of the Universe. The mathematics is telling them that there are fundamental questions that they will NEVER know the answer to. And that, to a statistical certainty. And although Physicists are fascinated by Black Holes, this is one black hole that nobody wants to admit even exists.

That is where Philosophy comes in. Philosophy is the science of thought, and reason, and of the limits of both thought and reason. I mean, what is a hard-ass theoretical physicist going to do when the scientific method itself, stops working? As I see it, they have two choices. They can go see their psychiatrist. Or they can go see a Philosopher. Or both. They have to live with fundamental ambiguity. They have to live with the limits of Human Knowledge. And that's what YOU philosopher-guys do all the time. You know how to live w/this weirdness. Physics does not.

May 23 2013:
This Physics-Conundrum, is just my pet-dilemma these days. And because I am NOT a physicist by training or background, I can only speculate. I just listen to what they say (and don't say) and wonder about it all. At some level I think, it serves them right. They've always tended to be an arrogant bunch!

What I can say that the Philosophers seem to be the Great Speculators. They seem to have a great familiarity with all the unanswerable questions of the universe. And with respect to natural science and their vaunted empiric methodology . . . the first person to ask about Biology, was NOT a Biologist. The first person to ask about Chemistry, was NOT a Chemist. The first person to ask about Physics, was not a Physicist. Somebody had to ask the fundamental questions that opened up these disciplines in their earliest stages. That first guy, was a Philosopher. And that Philosopher, was the first guy who had to admit: "I just don't have all the answers!"

I guess that's just basic info to you. I find myself in the role of reciting "Philosophy 101." Maybe I get it, and maybe I don't. But I doubt you'd respond if I just did not. So thank you. I can always appreciate a good lesson, or two.

I tend towards asking questions about the "ethics" of things. In fact, in graduate school they required us to take an ethics course in the first year. Not all of the Natural Sciences do that. And maybe they should. Had the first Nuclear Physicists been trained in Ethics (even at a fundamental level), would we EVER have built the Atomic Bomb?

May 20 2013:
The more I reside in both the groups of philosophers as well as scientists, the more i have noticed that Philosophers always have a very wrong views of science and so do Scientists have of Philosophy which is exactly what is happening here...
To Orlando Hawkins- I had the same kind of doubts like yourself, and found that the way of the future currently is science and Fields of Philosophy that are transitioning towards scientific methods (Consider Dan Dennet and his empirical methodology). Fields like Logic, Ethics, Aesthetics and parts of epistemology are becoming naturalistic day by day. Metaphysics is dead. Ontology is now shaped by science. I went into Science to begin to understand reality n I am working on a long term Philosophy project to see if current science can deliver that n in what ways can the project improve Science to deliver this. I had thought of skipping from science to the other side of philosophy but saw that the only way I can stop myself from mistaking science like Michael Foucault, or Thomas Kuhn did, is by seeing both perspectives. If you have a specific interest in a particular subject which is either in Logic, Semantics, or Ethics Go in Philosophy. If you wish to understand nature, Reality, consciousness, Ontology, or even Free Will (Neuroscience) etc go in Science

May 21 2013:
"The more I reside in both the groups of philosophers as well as scientists, the more i have noticed that Philosophers always have a very wrong views of science and so do Scientists have of Philosophy which is exactly what is happening here..."

Very true. What upsets me more (and perhaps a fault of my own) is that most people believe that I'm trying to get rid of philosophy. If they would of paid attention to my third paragraph or would have read my other post, I clearly lay down my issues with philosophy. I don't think philosophy should be replaced by science but I do think it could use a bit more empiricism. This thread made me realize that philosophy is almost dependent upon metaphysics. If i would have said epistemology I don't think it would have been met with much resistance or most probably would not have realized that epistemology was lost for a while until Chomsky introduced his theories about language and influenced the cognitive sciences.

As with the rest of what you said I do look towards the approach of Dennett and Harris. I try to find a middle ground between rationalism and naturalism. My school preaches post-modernism and I usually bump heads with my professors because of my more naturalistic approach to philosophy and at times i get confused because we preach the same values but they derive theirs from metaphysics and ontology and mine I feel are derived from the world around me.

as for what I want to do with both, I think I'm going to go into the philosophy of the mind.

May 21 2013:
I think there is a major mistake here. No major Universities on Earth avoid teaching science. That means physics, biology, chemistry, medicine, psychology, all the engineering disciplines, and even Mathematics. Cryptography represents one way in which mathematics has become hard science. And there are many other examples.

Philosophy is considered the mother of all academic disciplines. So no respected University can exist without teaching Philosophy. And as a rule, the expectation is that the Philosophers will respect the scientists and vice-versa.

This thread, however, does NOT reflect an Academically valid view of either Science or Philosophy. What we have here is mostly an opinion poll. Everyone has an opinion on the perceived dichotomy of science vs philosophy. Everyone has an opinion, but very little of that reflects what is really going on. In common parlance, "Philosophy" tends to refer to an amalgam of ideas that are not connected in any realistic way to rigorous academic pursuits. And if you talk about metaphysics, the "crowd-source" definition is in no way connected to the true definition that arises from the solid history of western philosophy. It does seem today that the only valid metaphysics is being done by physicists and Cosmologists. But what is going on here often sounds like it is being done by a Cosmetologist. Is this the day that cosmetology met cosmology?

May 19 2013:
I think you have the wrong view of philosophy, you can consider the idea's for tools, houses, etc, essentially metaphysical constructs before we inject information from our brains into the universe to re-arrange matter and energy according to information (our inner imaginary metaphysic).

The problem is not with philosophy but developing methods to find out whether our ideas are congruent with reality but our IDEA of reality is used to figure out what reality is.

Consider the idea that the universe is self-aware in some sense, capable of self-processing and self-configuring itself, this is not a 'mystical, non scientific idea'. Since one could say we possess some limited amount of self awareness, and therefore because we are just pieces of the universe. The universe might also have this property but is just dormant potential or just unconscious self-processing.

Or consider the idea that the our universe is a simulation, there are ideas that one can use to test for this idea. Basically when you get down to it, what we call "reality" has expanded and grown and changed over historical time. I think you have the wrong idea about 'science' because you don't seem to grasp the very importance of concepts to science. Information is extremely important.

The problem is the vast majority of human beings just don't think clearly about how to determine valid informational constructs from invalid ones. This is where analytical tools like math and science come in. But note that MATH is essentially metaphysical. There is no 'reality' to mathematics, it is a pure informational system we overlay on top of nature.

Think of newtons "laws", the aren't really "laws" in the sense that we have 100% precision, so even if your accuracy describes something fairly well, if it ain't perfect, well then you haven't found the right ideas and information and ways to structure it to clarify what you're seeing.

My problem is not with philosophy. My problem is with those who invoke metaphysics in spite of the overwhelming empirical evidence that is present. I'm not saying empiricism is the only way to go and the metaphysics that you described does serve a pragmatic purpose.

I think philosophy is capable of helping us understand the nature of reality as well as science and mysticism. The claim about the self-aware universe, while interesting and perhaps true (since it does operate in accordance to certain laws, just like humans) is a claim that may be beyond the scope of our cognition and I think there are good reasons to cast doubt on such a claim.

As with the case about science, I am well aware that what information that we find now could change at any moment if something else is discovered. I've mentioned this several times in other conversations. All we have, all that we can possibly know is what we have in the present moment. This is why many people tend not to think that science is capable of establishing values. By invoking science with value, we are in a way saying these values are absolute. Personally I think science (and philosophy) would provide more stable values.

May 21 2013:
There have been some recent TED talks addressing current issues in Social Psychology. Unfortunately, when I search TED using the search term "Social Psychology," I get nothing. Social Psychology is a valid, empirical sub-discipline of Psychology. And Psychology, itself, is a valid science. Maybe it wasn't back in the time of Sigmund Freud. But today, research in all Psychological disciplines is based in testing and statistics. And that fact, even the Physicists have to respect. But I said all that to address the issue of values. Social Psychology is developing as science of values, based in solid observation of both human behavior and our current, medical understanding of Brain science. Neuroscience and Social Psychology are beginning to address the issue of why people have values in the first place. And that inquiry is looking deeply into the evolutionary (i.e. Darwin) underpinnings of human society. What we call "values" and "ethics" can be measured. Scientific judgments can be made upon what is measured. And what most people would call the HIGHEST values & ethics, are being proven important in a way that is scientifically valid in an empiric sense. Today, we are developing a science of ethics and a science of values. And there is solid, experimental research behind it.

So we now have empiric science that addresses values. Values/ethics -- these esoteric subjects are now the subject of a significant amount of inquiry by Social Psychologists. They use the tools of science. And they reach some interesting conclusions that have made their way into several recent TED talks. Check out Jonathan Haidt & Sam Harris.

May 17 2013:
PS Orlando. I read a book a long time ago called 'The Reflective Universe: evolution of consciousness' by Arthur M. Young. I think this book is a good example of why Metaphysics has it's place in a real world. Arthur Young puts forward a well thought out, Philisophical and science based theory for the evolution of the universe in relation to humanity. It brings together Physics and Metaphysics. And although it's just a theory, one of many, the book is a good example of how Metaphysics can make a contribution to knowledge and is a step away from what people understand Metaphysics to be about. i.e. Weird stuff that has nothing to do with reality.

May 17 2013:
Orlando, I like you. You have depth. You made me think. I like to think. It's takes my mind off washing my socks. You are right when you imply that not everyone has the freedom to think beyond the mundane (my words). But for even the most humblest among us, there sometimes opens up a small trapdoor to the deep.

In regard to your comment.

I believe that Metaphysics is an essential ingredient in Philosophy. Science is a tool. It can make measurements and experiment with the mundane. But it cannot measure the immeasurable. And humanity cannot be found in a test-tube. Measuring our bit's cannot define what we are. So metaphysics offers alternative ways of reasoning that which 'empiricism and naturalism' give no reasonable account. It is door through which there may be a way to interpret the reality we see every day and may help us to reach a new way of being human. So for me Metaphics represent's a little hope, a bit of magick and we could all use a little of those now and again. However, as you suggest, we need to take care of business and feed the crying baby of life. So maybe the journey into the relm of Metaphysics should be an enlightening trip available to all but not an extended vacation in relation to philosophical education. What do you think?

As I have learned throughout this thread, metaphysics appear to be very vital to philosophy, almost to the point that if it were to ever be taken out of philosophy that would spell the end to philosophy itself. This may perhaps be true.

I do acknowledge that science has it limits but if we are talking about what is true and what is not. What is factual and what is not, I do not think we should fill in these gaps with just anything, which I believe that metaphysicians do sometimes.I even think that empiricism and naturalism have its limits because not every natrualisitc event will have an explination. I just personally believe that the things that matters to us the most happens within the physical universe.

In regards to the important questions that we have that science cannot answer, I think existential philosophy is more vital than metaphysics because it teachs us to confront our existential dispair. With metaphysics I believe it leads people to be dishonest about the way things really are. Of course this is not always the case if we take into account something like mysticism.

Also I believe that good philosophy and science are one and the same. science will always have philosophical emplications.

but yes, if metaphysicis and philosophy is important I believe it should be able to tap into the mundane as well.

May 19 2013:
One thing I would like to add-in is that metaphysics is essential to science. It gives it reference. For example, take what you said in the second paragraph "... science has it limits but if we are talking about what is true and what is not. What is factual and what is not...". What is true? That question is a philosophical can of worms in itself. More importantly, science is probabilistic. At it's foundation it is supposed to represent a method for arriving at an approximation of what is "the truth". So science should not be equated with truth.

As for metaphysics, it provides an arena for theorizing about questions science cannot easily address. For example, does free will exist? This is a question that science can assist with, but cannot definitively answer. You are right though, metaphysics can lead to dishonesty. Personally, I think religion is the prime example here. In this sense metaphysics is certainly imperfect. Its value comes from the fact that it provides a forum with some rules (i.e. logic) for discussing important questions about the universe and humanity.

In a sense I feel like existentialism fits within it rather than next to it. To me, it seems like existentialism relies heavily on free will, which is a rather metaphysical concept. It also relies on a philosophical definition of self that is by no means universal. Metaphysics just provides a domain to question and argue about these universal assumptions. Whether it is useful on an everyday basis is another question. Even if it isn't, I would still argue that it is important.

May 15 2013:
Despite the fact that I disagree with some of this...you are obviously heading your own direction. The professor could probably learn from you. Keep going in that direction. My only advice is don't exclude things because somebody gives you a bad taste.

Audit data...don't ignore it before you measure its' validity. I'm sure you know that already. I'm also sure you'll be able to replace some of those professors at some point.

Thank you and thanks for you advice. This conversations really has changed my approach to metaphysics. I'll give it more consideration than I originally gave it. Its good to talk to people who seem to know what they are talking about..

May 15 2013:
Yeah I agree but unfortunately not all want to be grounded. I could sit all day and speak to people about all aspects of philosophy as it is important to me. I love what it teaches me. I just wish I could instill that passion in others so they can find the same value I find in it. What I don't want is for doing away with Metaphysics to be the first step to doing away with Philosophy. Maybe if you sit down with your friend and explain how Philosophy in combination with another major may be more valuable than to toss it out completely because Philosophy does have purpose. The problem is when people don't take the time to understand it. Philosophy keeps you out of The Cave. That's how I see it...

Exactly! like you I think philosophy is very important. I don't think the world would be what it is today without philosophy.

What honestly perturbs me is how many people jumped to the side of metaphysics and assumed that I wanted to do away with philosophy all together. I personally think epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy and logic are more important branches of philosophy than metaphysics. I just think those schools of philosophy have more to offer to the world and serves a practical purpose. We can talk about ontology but I don't think this is the only means of figuring out who we are as individuals. Living life and constantly discovering and asking questions is perhaps all we need.

I do share our concern about metaphysics being the first step of doing away with philosophy. I guess what most people do not realize is the same thing almost happened with epistemology and we are doing just fine. For a while epistemology was dead but with the rise of modern cognitive and neuroscience, epistemology is now vital but in a different way. It more scientific but at the same time still answers those fundamental epistemological questions that the ancients used to ask. Perhaps metaphysics does not need to go away but I do believe it has to change.

I could not tell you the amount of emails I've received about how uninformed and misguided I am about the relationship between philosophy and metaphysics. It really does let me know that there is something fundamental about metaphysics that seem to terrify people if it ever goes away , I'm just not sure what yet.

May 14 2013:
Just out of pure GRIT, consider this option. (and by the way, here's the link to the TED video: http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html ). So just out of GRIT, here is a good way to shake their tree. This is something that they do in graduate school. And students are expected to look for these ideas and research them. The best way to sell an idea in Graduate School is to write a position paper. You can also call the paper an "Idea for Research & Publication" You can even describe it as both. You can write as much as you want. A couple of pages to a twenty page thesis. It's all up to you.

Then, shop your paper to a Professor you trust. If you don't know WHO to trust, then write at least a solid five to ten pages w/documentation. Keep it safe. Summarize it. And shop a one page summary to several professors. Guard your ideas, because some professors do a good job of stealing the best ideas from their students. If you go to graduate school, by the time you get ready to do your dissertation, you should have a mentor who will protect you from the predatory types. But undergraduates with good ideas have them stolen ALL the time. Some professors collect those good ideas and shop them to their favorite students. Some professors research those ideas themselves and the PUBLISH them in scholarly journals. And no one has to cite the hard work of an undergraduate.

Watch some videos. Read some quality articles on the internet. Do some thinking. And develop at least a tentative position on the subject. And because you are clearly an educated student keep track of what you know is good and what both sustains and refutes your idea.

I gave you some names in my posts. Look them up on Youtube. I tried a search on "Physics & Metaphysics," and then "Quantum Physics and Metaphysics." I really liked the TED talk: "Let's Talk Crap!" And since they can use that word here: my Youtube search results were CRAP!

May 17 2013:
Cool thanks,I'll actually be applying to graduate programs this fall. So thanks for the heads up. I'll certainly keep all this in mind. I especially do not like to have my ideas stolen. Also I would give you thumbs up on everything but I reached my max for the week. So don't think I'm ignoring your responses.

If you don't mind me asking did you go to graduate school for philosophy?

May 18 2013:
Don't you have finals this time of year? And if you do, what in hell are you doing on TED! If you have tests coming up, THAT and nothing else is what you should pay attention to!

Good luck applying to Graduate School. Start early and focus on the GRE and any other required entrance tests that the best schools use. Also work on your CV and any publications that you might add there. Original publications in scholarly journals count a lot. But verify everything I tell you with a faculty adviser. I've been out of circulation for a while.

A guy I knew back in the day (before you were born, probably) was a Philosophy major. He had gone to work for the Central Intelligence Agency. At least that is what he said. The advantage to your major is that you know (allegedly know) how to think. Which means you can spot the B.S. quickly and separate that out from the truth of things. I don't know that this guy really worked for the CIA. But that is what he said. And I don't think he was lying.

Check out this web site: http://www.stratfor.com .Stratfor is a company set up by a couple of guys who are just a bit older than me. They do private intelligence analysis work for corporations that do business overseas. If you want to learn more, go to their web site and sign up for their free newsletter. Every third letter will encourage you to buy a $360 subscription to their services for $129, but the news letter does some excellent analysis of the news. Good stuff. It's news that forces you to think. And it makes most of the other news outlets look really wimpy. They hire trainees once a year, and maybe you'd consider. It isn't so much foreign affairs or diplomacy as solid practical info on how stuff really works in places outside the U.S.A. I was encouraged to apply for a job w/them a few years back, but I'm twice as old as the best candidates. And the best candidates are guys like YOU. Has me all intimidated. Besides, I'm retired. And I like that

May 14 2013:
I have read and tried to understand every statements in this discussions and I’m having a feeling that disputants consider philosophy, metaphysics and different kind of sciences as diverse objects, separate from oneself. But in reality there are no different sciences but there are different people and everyone from them has some (any) metaphysics, philosophy, physics and so on. Mostly that metaphysics, philosophies, physics and other kinds of science are naïve or taken from teachers, especially great thinkers, for example: Aristotle, Whitehead or Einstein. Everyone tries to have united, consistent image of reality and in that image there are religious, philosophical and scientific aspects. That’s why everyone needs - and has - some kind of metaphysics too.

May 14 2013:
It is interesting, because I feel as though many are doing away with metaphysics. A lot if faith and spirituality has been lost. It could be because in the age of information, not being able to prove and explain things troubles a lot of people. The problem with metaphysics is that it is something that really can't be explained or proven to a full extent. It is something that is sensed. To me it is something that excites and inspires me. When I find that sense and energy within myself, everything becomes so clear. I feel and act like a much better person. Sometimes being more divergent from your program is a good thing. Take it as an opportunity to learn fro each other. I find that when my ideas go against what I am being taught I am able to use that to ask questions to my professors that make them rethink everything. Maybe try meditating and allow your mind to relax and be open. Who knows what could come of it. If anything it is a proven way to reduce stress. While it is unlikely metaphysical existence will be proven, at least in the near future, that feeling of interconnectedness brings a new level of morality to others. The sense to do good for humanity and not just for ones own self and those they are more personally connected to.

I must admit that I am no philosopher. I am interested in the subject and probably know more than a lot of people, but I have no formal training. I am very spiritual, although I can't help but feel as though most members of organized religions don't truly understand what they say they believe in, at least those that I know. The ironic pharisaic nature of Christianity indicates that. I wonder if most major religions are actually trying to explain the same thing, but because they were formed in different cultures and environments, it was explained differently. There are a lot of similarities in the words and values of most "prophets".

May 16 2013:
fair enough! i wondered because in my experience many people say they're spiritual when they mean they make an effort to take time out to relax. it seems to be given all kinds of fancy names. as well as being spiritual it could be "getting in touch with myself" or "connecting with mother nature" etc etc. it's always good to hear if someone has a different concept of the word.

good question re the beginning of the universe. i guess it could be the common outcome of whatever potential existed, or it could be a simulation (or was that possibility ruled out recently? i forget), but whatever the answer is, we can at least know that it wasn't a thought.

I did not intend for my comments to make it seem as though I do not value spirituality. I do very much vaule sprituality and quite frankly I do not see philosophy nor spirituality ever going away. As long as people have existential questions philosophy and spirituality will remain.

People like myself may feel uncomfortable with things that cannot be proven or do not seem to have an answer but that does not mean we do not enjoy exploring the mystery.

For me personally, I'm a spritual person but I do not have to invoke metaphysics or superstition to be spiritual. Just being in awe or having ineffable expereinces is enough for me. Seeing how altered states of consciousness can teach me new things is enough for me. I simply go with the flow of my expereince and do not feel that even if I feel like I'm having a transcendental moment, I am not going outside of my own mind, brain or consciousness. All I know is that I'm having an experience and I need to make the most of it. I don't think I need metaphysics for that

May 13 2013:
Philosophy is usually the starting point of understanding. In science before you have a conclusion you need an expriment and a hypothesis before that. Where do hypotheses come from?.. sometimes by inferences of previous data but many times scientific endeavors are inspired directly by philosophy. Philosophy will always be necessary, its just that Science and its determined results, will always be of greater importance in general.

Yes I do agree with philosophy being the starting point (pretty much with everything you mentioned). I believe it to be very important to just about any discipline. I think the questions that metaphysicians ask are valid and interesting. My issues are with individuals who come up with metaphysical conclusions.

One such example would be panpsychism. While i find it interesting I just don't find it conclusive and its a metaphysical question that cannot (as of yet) be verified. philosophically this may be interesting to discuss but when coming up with conclusions with the way the world or universe actually is, I think this is something that can be left off the table. this would be my reason as to why philosophy isn't necessarily taken seriously.

exactly. It has gotten to the point that a great friend of mine decided to switch majors. Metaphysics is also the main reason as to why I'm starting to incorporate science with my philosophy. I just feel that its a necessary approach and it keeps grounded in objectivity.

May 13 2013:
NEVER out of style; only out of fashion. The first discipline studied by all of the Enlightened thinkers (along with Latin and Greek) was Philosophy. And the first questions asked by all Philosophers from Aristotle to Voltaire were in the arena of Metaphysics. I quote here (and below) from Wikipedia/metaphysics:
"The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the totality of all phenomena within the universe."

All those old guys like Newton and Leibniz were first educated in Philosophy. They later branched out into the highly regarded, and cutting-edge Medaevil disciplines of Astrology, Alchemy, Philology, and maybe some Euclidian Geometry. They had to study Latin & Greek too. But it all started with the Greek Philosophy of Aristotle and Plato & the writings of Homer. When Alchemy became empiric & scientific, it became Chemistry. When Astrology gave up divination, it became Astronomy. When medicine gave up phlebotomy (blood-letting & Leeches), it became, well, medicine. But the patients did much better when their physicians became scientific. And they've since brought back the leeches as well.

Now the modern Astronomers, Cosmologists and theoretical physicists are taking Metaphysics to a new level. They are asking all the same questions about existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, possibility & even Cosmology. It all sounds like Metaphysics to me.

Thanks for you comments. I really do like your thinking as well. I've never considered what you said but its right down my alley.

I have no problem with that definition of metaphysics. I think your correct that modern astronomers, cosmologist and physicist may be our modern metaphysicians. If conclusions regarding metaphysics can be grounded in accordance with the evidence that is there, I have no problem with that at all. So perhaps the answer to my original question would be that metaphysics should not be taken out philosophy but should be modified to coincide with modernity. Or that the conclusions do not always have to be metaphysical ones.